Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

Which Series of Craft Wins the Fight.... Bf-109 or the Spitfire???

  • Total voters
    159

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I agree there, I don't think the Luftwaffes defeat in the BoB was anything to do with the 109. I'm not sure what range has to do with it though, All the targets that needed to be attacked could be reached by the 109, and after 5 mins in a dogfight a pilot was knackered anyway (not to mention about 7 secs firing time of cannon ammo).

I think the real reason for the defeat would take the thread off topic, but I think the 109 pilots and planes performed as well as their leadership allowed them to during the battle and carry no blame at all for the loss, except maybe for underestimating the opposition slightly, but dont all fighter pilots do that?.

People seem to view the outcome of the BoB as a total shock, but forget that the LW was facing the best prepared fighter defence screen in the world and also there first opponent that they could'nt simply drive into on the ground.
 
Last edited:
The ability to loiter over a target is very important. Its not an issue of range so much as endurance. The Me 109s simply could not hang around lonmg enough to protect the bombers effectively, from what Ive read. If they could loiter they could double back, dive, climb, manouvre, and concentrate a whole lot bette than they could with effecctively only a 120 mile combat radius.

The Spitfire suffered the same restrictions in terms of its range, so it is unfair to criticise the 109 without at least acknowledging that the Brits had similar problems.

If the Germans had been differently equipped, say with an aircraft like the zero, I think they probably would have won the battle. They could have continued their harassment of the British fighter forces long after the battle around the bombers was over, or long before the bombers arrived into the battle area, and given the german fighters more time to do what they were there to do....shoot down Fighter Commnad, as a secondary objective, minimise the losses to their own bombers.
 
But how long did Mustangs hang around over Germany when they were escorting allied bomber raids? Didn't they just escort them out and back too, engaging enemy fighters while the bombers were over the target area?

A pet theory of mine as to something the LW 'could have done better' would be low and fast fighter bomber raids by Bf 110, escorted by 109's, concentrated against the Chain Home stations rather than the largely ineffectual and intermittent Stuka raids they did launch. KInock that out and FC's response is in disarray, demading standing patrols in place of scrambles and leading to fatigue and being forced to commit more squadrons to the battle while others don't get rested.
 
Last edited:
The problem wasn't with the Ju87 or its payload, the problem was the design of the masts. Basically these were large metal structures built with steel girders. When a bomb went off near by the blast had little or no effect as the blast was deflected between the structures with almost no damge to the radar itself.
A low level strike would have had the same troubles and losses were likely to have been as high if not higher as the AA defences were pretty good and a low flying aircraft a decent target.
 
If the problem wasn't the Ju-87 how come it is the only German combat type that was withdrawn from the battle? I feel a fast low flying raider like the Bf 110 could have approached under the radar screen and given little warning, its higher performance added to that would have reduced its vulnerability. The Ju 87 was a problem only because it approached at a nice detectable altitude at a stupidly low speed. its load and accuracy was fine.

One raid put Ventnor out of action briefly but was never followed up, possibly due to the high losses. My point is mainly in the way the attacks on the Radar Stations were carried out, but I think a 'Mossie-esque' approach by Bf-110s would also be a more survivable way of doing it for the sake of the crews, who can then do it again, and again instead of swimming to captivity if they are lucky.

I don't pretend this makes them invulnerable or is fool proof, but I just feel it would have been better than what was actually done.
 
Last edited:

Mustangs spread out and hunted quite a bit if I understand the way the missions ran correctly. I believe escort missions had different fighter groups relaying the escort duty.
 
Glider said:
To then not even prepare for the use of drop tanks despite the lessons of the Spanish Civil War was almost criminal folly.
Click to expand...

The E-7 was introduced in late August and was capable of carrying a 300 liter droptank, boosting range to 1300 or so km. It just didnt become widespread overnight. By late October the older models were retrofitted for use of droptanks, so I guess it the criticism is somewhat unfair, as they made the correct measures (obviously it took some time developing and producing it, so probably preceedes the Battle). Nevertheless, the range issue was serious, no doubt.
 
Waynos said:
If the problem wasn't the Ju-87 how come it is the only German combat type that was withdrawn from the battle?
Click to expand...

It wasn't withdrawn. Stukas continued to fly anti shipping missions and occasional raids on airfields until the end of the Battle. They simply didn't have the range for deeper penetrations, ie. London, and escorting them amongst level bombers would have create tactical difficulties.
 

Occasional, as in not very often and only when there were no defenders? By stopping using Ju 87's for attacking important coastal targets, ie the radar stations, is a de facto withdrawal, just like we did with the Defiant. It wasn't actually removed, they were just sent to defend Cornwall
 
Its a matter of how you look at it, and you can see it as both a withdrawal or sending them to other duties. I think a lot prestige/propaganda is involved which term people use, but its worth keeping in mind that Stukas first and foremost "attended" to the coastal shipping during the whole Battle. IIRC they were only employed once or twice against airfields and radar stations, which sometimes worked spendidly, at other times with heavy losses - but thats fairly typical to any other aircraft in the Battle, and owes a lot more to the given tactical situation then the tecnical aspects of the aircraft. In the end the Stukas were grouped near Calais and went back primarly what they did the best, attack shipping. And occasional yes, do ponder about the fact that the early Stuka B had very short range (about as much or less as the 109E), and only limited bombload and this was an important factor in that it did not take part in the late August / September phase of the Battle, where targets were further away and required pure tonnage, rather then precision.

Its just employing your tools the way it suits them the best. Defiants were for example well suited for night fighter work, much better than Spits or Hurris.
 

I was aware of this, but the folly was that knowing the role that the 109 was going to undertake that the Luftwaffe went into battle without drop tanks. Having used them in the Spanish Civil War they knew how important drop tanks were.
For the BOB they were too little too late.
 
Fair point well made Kurfurst. If anything that brings me back to my original point that the LW erred in not maintaining the radar stations as a prime target throughout the battle.Raids by Bf110's against the Chain Home network as the main bomber force attacked the airfields/London would wreak havoc I believe. Its not just about the masts either. the control rooms were mainly above ground and it was very difficult to direct the fighter defences when you were being bombed. One station had its service interrupted when a lucky bomb hit a nearby road and severed the main power line. I just find it odd that this vital part of the defence chain was allowed a relatively easy battle.
 
Last edited:

metric it's a standard near in all the world...

maybe but saw the error in your handbook on speed maybe there are error also in range
 
Vincenzo said:
metric it's a standard near in all the world...

maybe but saw the error in your handbook on speed maybe there are error also in range
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase > laid out in a table is easier to understand. Imperial for those that are more familiar with Imperial.

What would the error? Are you confusing max speed with cruise speed?
 

Given that the figures come from the actual World War II German range table for the 109E, I'd say the problem is likely to be in your thinking.

More fuel carried will yield better avarage miles-per-gallon in an aircraft, given that a larger percantage will be burned under ideal conditions for max range, ie. cruise at economic speed and power at proper altitude, and a smaller percentage will be used up uneconomically take off and climb. Carrying double the fuel does not mean that the aircraft will have to climb to altitude twice as well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
Spitfire vs Hurricane
Replies
1
Views
2K
pbehn
P
  • Poll
Spitfire MK-IX vs Messerchmitt Me109G-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
Menu
Log in
Register